In being consistently libertarian the Liberties Union has never hesitated to take action involving its principles when that action was to the benefit of suppressive, intolerant, demagogic, and generally anti-libertarian elements. In 1934, for example, it sent its general counsel to aid the Friends of New Germany, a Nazi organization, in court proceedings to break down a lawless prohibition of their meeting in New Jersey.

This logical gesture was a shock to the howling enemies of the Union, who continually accuse it of being “pro-Communist” because so many of the men and women defended from illegal attacks are workers. It was even criticized by members who would except the German Fascists from their tolerance for the rather good reason that since the Nazis in Germany suppress all civil liberties, their agents should be permitted none in America. Moreover, there was the knowledge that free speech and assemblage would be denied us if these same German Nazis got control of local, city or state government anywhere in America.

Also GENAU DIE Argumente, die jetzt auch kommen. 1934.

Und hier ist, wie die ACLU damals argumentiert hat.

Some years ago, when the Ku Klux Klan was invading the north, Mayor Curley of Boston, a Catholic, denied this terroristic body the right to hold a meeting and have speeches, but here again the Union protested, not because it had any love for the sheeted and dangerous yokels, but because it knew that if the Mayor suppressed the Klan he would lawlessly stop others he disliked — birth control advocates, union organizers, pacifists, etc. “And,” continues the report, “he did. Our protest began when his lawless suppression began. We do not choose our clients. Lawless authorities denying their rights choose them for us.”

“Few of our critics,” replied the Union, “take a frankly class position on the exercise of free speech, as do the Communists — denying to reactionaries the rights they seek for themselves. Emotions of hate and intolerance alone lead them to outlaw the Nazis.

But if the Union yielded to such critics, and condoned the denial of rights to Nazi propagandists, in what position would it be to champion the rights of others? Shall we choose to defend only progressive or radical causes? And if we do, how best can we defend them? Is it not clear that free speech as a practical tactic, not only an abstract principle, demands defense of the rights of all who are attacked in order to obtain the rights of any?”

It was on precisely such a basis that our attorneys, both Jews, urged on the Mayer of New York the use of city property for a meeting of the persecutors of Jews, the Nazis; and that our general counsel, Arthur Garfield Hays, a Jew, aided the attorney for the Friends of New Germany (Nazi) in court proceedings to break down a lawless prohibition of their meetings in New Jersey.

[…]

We do not choose our clients. Lawless authorities denying their rights choose them for us.

To those who advocate suppressing propaganda they hate, we ask--where do you draw the line? They can answer only in the terms of revolutionists--at our political enemies. But experience shows that “political enemies” is a broad term, and has covered the breaking up even of working class meetings by rival working class organizations. It illustrates the danger, and the impracticality of making any distinctions in defending rights sought by all.

To those who would suppress meetings where race or religious hatred is likely to be stirred up, the answer is simple, — that there is no general agreement on what constitutes race or religious prejudice. Once the bars are so let down, the field is open for all-comers to charge such prejudice against any propagandists, — Communists, Socialists, atheists, — even against Jews attacking the Nazis.

The American Civil Liberties Union will no longer defend hate groups seeking to march with firearms, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday, a policy change that comes on the heels of protests by white nationalists and counter-protesters at the weekend in Virginia.

Wow. Money Quote:

An ACLU spokeswoman confirmed the policy shift and said the concern over weapons was not something the group has had to contend with in the past.

"We’ve had people with odious views, all manner of bigots. But not people who want to carry weapons and are intent on committing violence," ACLU spokeswoman Stacy Sullivan said in a telephone interview.